Good work on this file, keep it up. Minor qualifications we can discuss:
Race stuff can be discussed only to the degree it's backed up with DNA or specific cultural claims with attribution, i.e. someone willing to say it. Sometimes anti-race claims require such documentation too because of the resistance they encounter, e.g. DNA proof that Semitic Jews and Palestinian Arabs are genetically indistinguishable.
Religious stereotypes, especially of Muslims or Hindus or Buddhists or CAtholics or fundamentalist Christians, have to be rooted out and heavily qualified. The more we can align a political view with an overtly political sect, the better off we are. Many religions ARE political, but very few, not even Catholicism or Shia Islam, are monolithically so.
Another challenge we face is the various views of anarchism and the anarchists that come here to tell us that only their way is the right way to see them, i.e. 'all versions of anarchism are false except my one true way'. Which is actually w:solipsism but never mind.
A particularly dangerous piece of nonsense is that a term is owned or even primarily defined by its inventor or coiner, as opposed to those who carry the idea forth in academic discourse. Works the other way around too: Some terms, like "paradigm" were actually disavowed by their creator, and that's got to be clear in our texts. Else people like Thomas Kuhn or Michel Foucault will be seen as licensing a whole range of post-facto patent nonsense.
Is this a joke?
Scientific people from all over the world proved human races don't exist. Consequently races don't exist. Consequently racialism cannot exist, for otherwise it would be relying on nothing. Since race don't exist, racism can't exist either. Following, any articles dealing with racism, racist insults, race, racialism should not be on Wikipedia (only things that are real should be in Wikipedia).